I caught a snippet of the congressional hearing on sexual predation at Lackland Air Force Base last week on CSPAN.

Sexual predation is indefensible, and everything should be done to punish the perpetrators and deter further abuse. But there may be a limit to how much gender-sensitivity training can do to reengineer some brutish but basic human impulses in an institution still at least formally dedicated to a high-testosterone activity, one characterized by extreme and absolute differences of power. The goal of the military’s diversity infrastructure — to introduce women into every corner of a formerly predominantly male activity — had better be highly important to war preparedness to justify the cost. There may have been a wisdom in the millennia-long separation of the sexes in the combat portions of military organizations, beyond simply the physical unfitness of nearly all women for the rigors of actual, sustained combat.

The hearing featured tearful victims of sexual assault on American military bases, still reeling from the experience years later. What will happen, one wonders, if our newly minted female fighters are captured in a country where rape is a tool of war. Will we take sexual-assault advisers on combat missions or let the women fend for themselves psychologically as well as physically? And what will be the opportunities to retrain the enemy?

The underlined text echoes exactly the first thoughts that popped into my mind upon hearing that women in the U.S. military can now become combat soldiers/sailors/airmen.

What percent of female POWs that are captured by Islamafascist taliban and al qaida cowards will be raped? I suspect that one hundred percent will be raped brutally, and I suspect that one hundred percent will be raped brutally and repeatedly.

Last edited by RockOnBrother on Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:07 am; edited 1 time in total

The “issue of rape” is an assault issue; the “issue of rape” is an extreme violence against persons issue; the “issue of rape” is a long term, often lifelong, deep psychological damage issue.

Rape is just another form of torture…

Rape is a specific form of torture, not “just” another form. As a man immune to vaginal rape and not particularly susceptible to rape of any form, I cannot even begin to fathom the psychological horror of having one’s most intimate organ callously and brutally violated. I cannot accept the premise that rape is comparable to other forms of torture.

Shirina wrote:… both men and women are often tortured as POWs.

As implied in my comments above, female POWs are almost certainly subjected to vaginal rape, a form of torture to which male POWs cannot be subjected.

Shirina wrote:Torture in its many forms always leave life-long, deep psychological damage. Just being in combat can do that.

As a male, I can be left with life-long, deep psychological damage from other forms of torture; female warriors, in contrast, can be left with life-long, deep psychological damage from other forms of torture and rape.

Shirina wrote:I'm not trying to downplay the severity of rape, not in the least, but when rape is put into the context of war, it is not any worse than any other form of torture.

The “issue of rape” is an assault issue; the “issue of rape” is an extreme violence against persons issue; the “issue of rape” is a long term, often lifelong, deep psychological damage issue.

........ female warriors are inherently in double jeopardy.[/color]

It is already a matter of public record that during the G W Bush administration, the US took prisoners who were incarcerated in Guantanamo without respect for the Geneva Convention, and without access to normal judicial process. As a matter of fact, those detainees were exclusively male and muslim, but how different would have been the World public reaction had they included females?

RockOnBrother wrote:The “issue of rape” is an assault issue; the “issue of rape” is an extreme violence against persons issue; the “issue of rape” is a long term, often lifelong, deep psychological damage issue.

oftenwrong wrote:… those detainees were exclusively male… but how different would have been the World public reaction had they included females?

You contemplate that which ought to be contemplated prior to approving women’s intentional inclusion in combat units that are being deployed in harm’s way. Unfortunately, those responsible for such inclusionary decisions` are doing far too little contemplation upon the question you’ve raised as they perhaps unwittingly expose women to horrific treatment, including brutal and repeated rape, by their inevitable captors, which in Afghanistan are primarily taliban and al qaida.

oftenwrong wrote:… those detainees were exclusively… muslim…

They were “muslims” (lci), not Muslims. One is a Muslim as one follows the tenets of Islam, the five principles pillars of which are:

Belief in one God Who has absolutely no associate with Him in His divinity;

Belief in God's Angels;

Belief in God's Books, and in the Holy Qur'an as His Last Book;

Belief in God's Prophets, and in Muhammad (blessings of Allah and peace be upon him) as His Last and Final Messenger; and

The Qur’an teaches that Muslims are to treat Jews, People of the Law, and Christians, People of the Gospel (collectively, “People of the Book”), with dignity, honor, respect, and deference. By inference, one can confidently conclude that this admonition applies also to Baha’is, who share knowledge of (“belief in”) one God (whose name is Allah, incomprehensible power) with People of the Law, People of the Gospel, and Muslims. One can also confidently conclude through inference that this admonition extends to all people worldwide who practice righteous behavior, including those who do so while neither knowing nor acknowledging God (Allah, Eloah, Elohim) from which righteousness flows.

Accordingly, those who tolerates, condones, propagates, or participates in heinous acts such as the extermination of precious human souls cannot be Muslims. Perhaps “muslims” (lci) in the same way that kkk cowards are “christians”, but certainly not Muslims.

For further contemplation:

Islam, in fact, is an attributive title. Anyone who possesses this attribute, whatever race, community, country or group he or she belongs to, is a Muslim. According to the Qur'an (the Holy Book of the Muslims), among every people and in all ages there have been good and righteous people who possessed this attribute - and all of them were and are Muslims.

A politician stuck with a question he/she prefers not to answer will invariably answer a different question. Only God can know whether a person truly believes in their professed Faith, so applying labels is a human choice, therefore fallible.

It is also problematic whether there can ever be a definitive resolution of English-language versions of any concept that was originally expressed in a different language. For example, a Muslim would be unlikely to use the English to describe himself, since the probability must be that Arabic controls both the thoughts and their expression.

Wikipedia gives the following translations:The word muslim (Arabic: مسلم‎, IPA: [ˈmʊslɪm]; English /ˈmʌzlɨm/, /ˈmʊzlɨm/, /ˈmʊslɨm/ or moslem /ˈmɒzləm/, /ˈmɒsləm/) is the participle of the same verb of which islām is the infinitive, based on the triliteral S-L-M "to be whole, intact". A female adherent is a muslima (Arabic: مسلمة‎). The plural form in Arabic is muslimūn (مسلمون), and its feminine equivalent is muslimāt (مسلمات).

oftenwrong wrote:Wikipedia gives the following translations:The word muslim (Arabic: مسلم‎, IPA: [ˈmʊslɪm]; English /ˈmʌzlɨm/, /ˈmʊzlɨm/, /ˈmʊslɨm/ or moslem /ˈmɒzləm/, /ˈmɒsləm/) is the participle of the same verb of which islām is the infinitive, based on the triliteral S-L-M "to be whole, intact". A female adherent is a muslima (Arabic: مسلمة‎). The plural form in Arabic is muslimūn (مسلمون), and its feminine equivalent is muslimāt (مسلمات).

Abul A'la Mawdudi provides the following teachings:

Basics of Becoming a MuslimAbul A'la Mawdudi

Islam, in fact, is an attributive title. Anyone who possesses this attribute, whatever race, community, country or group he or she belongs to, is a Muslim. According to the Qur'an (the Holy Book of the Muslims), among every people and in all ages there have been good and righteous people who possessed this attribute - and all of them were and are Muslims.

Prophet Muhammad (blessings of Allah and peace be upon him) has enjoined us to believe in five articles of faith:

Belief in one God Who has absolutely no associate with Him in His divinity;

Belief in God's Angels;

Belief in God's Books, and in the Holy Qur'an as His Last Book;

Belief in God's Prophets, and in Muhammad (blessings of Allah and peace be upon him) as His Last and Final Messenger; and

Belief in life after death.

One who believes in these articles enters the fold of Islam and becomes a member of the Muslim community.

This article was edited for IslamiCity in Cyberspace and was compiled from various chapters of the book titled, "Towards Understanding Islam" by Abul A'la Mawdudi, translated by Khurshid Ahmad, and published by The Islamic Foundation, United Kingdom. ISBN 0-86037-053-4 (pages 17, 86-93, 115-116)

You are a very trusting person. How do you know that the Arabic greeting, As-salam alaykum (السلام عليكم) doesn't in fact signify something along the lines of "Kiss my ass"? Without learning to become bi-lingual?

You are a very trusting person. How do you know that the Arabic greeting, As-salam alaykum (السلام عليكم) doesn't in fact signify something along the lines of "Kiss my ass"? Without learning to become bi-lingual?

A little mistake in the pronunciation of the Islamic greeting can turn it into wishing a death threat.

I watched The Kite Runner on TV 2 nights ago. It is a film about Afghanistan. It shows how free they all were before the Russians invaded, with European back-packers strolling through Kabul, women with their hair free and in western dress, but it still seemed to be an all-male world. This is because women are not free. After the Russians invaded the opposition became the Al Qaeda we know today, stoning to death any women with intent to be independent in any way. They are captives to be valued and passed from father to husband. Men therefore take advantage of boys and other men.

It was shocking in its depictions of male on male rape.

This is the crime which is unspoken. Laurence of Arabia never recovered his leadership charisma after he was captured.

The male student who was with the female medical student who died in India was also thrown off the bus naked.

The investigation into child abuse in the UK talks of the abuse of girls and 'others'.

Being captured as a soldier in Afghanistan is not to be recommended for anyone, male or female.

In Europe we had the Grail stories and chivalric codes of love. The poetry of Rumi is the sufi equivalent. The knights went on quests to win the love of the fair maid, who was placed on a pedestal and worshipped as a goddess. Rumi on the other hand loved a guy. Women have never been such high status in the Middle East. Their tribes did not have female queens the way European countries did.

Joan of Arc is best remembered for having been burnt at the stake as a witch. It is not usually recalled that she was the leading military strategist who led the French armies to countless victories.

Some very interesting and balanced thoughts and partial thoughts there, methought.I wonder if you're planning to develop this theme further - you've certainly given me the stimulus to do a bit of research.

The risk of rape is not exclusive to women in the military. Male soldiers are at risk as well. Sexual humiliation is a tool of war whether it is against females or males. It's meant to completely objectify, subjugate and humiliate the victim. My guess is that male rape in the military is grossly under-reported.

For those who mistakenly believe that United Sates Military Personnel do not face prosecution for rape and under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, read the excerpt below and view all linked text and videos concerning United States Army Master Sergeant Timothy B. Hennis, recalled to active duty, convicted at court martial, sentenced to death, reduced in rank from E-8 to E-1, and dishonorably discharged from the military with forfeiture of all pay and benefits.

WASHINGTON (Army News Service, April 9, 2010) -- A master sergeant who was acquitted by a North Carolina court more than 20 years ago was found guilty of murder again Thursday in a court-martial at Fort Bragg, N.C.

[Hennis] returned to active duty in the Army upon his [North Carolina court] acquittal, and served until 2004 when he honorably retired as a master sergeant. In 2006, new DNA evidence was found which was not available in the 1980s. The Army then recalled Hennis to active duty to face a court-martial.

Name: Timothy B. HennisCase: United States v. HennisDate Of Crime: May 9, 1985Date Of Conviction: April 8, 2010Military Branch: U.S. Army

Hennis resumed his Army career and retired in 2004.

When the DNA test results came back [in 2006], Hennis, who had been living as a free man was positively connected to the rape and murder.

Hennis couldn't be retried [by North Carolina] due to… double jeopardy. As is their right, the military called him back into active duty service on October 30, 2006 and then began their own trial, using the DNA evidence as the primary basis of their case.

Hennis was convicted for murder April 8, 2010 after about three hours of deliberation by a jury panel of 14 Army officers and non-commissioned officers…

Taliban publicly execute woman near Kabul to cheers of jubilation from watching men

By Hamid Shalizi and Amie Ferris-Rotman

KABUL – Saturday, 7 July 2012, 7:04 PM BST

KABUL (Reuters) - A man Afghan officials say is a member of the Taliban shot dead a woman accused of adultery in front of a crowd near Kabul, a video obtained by Reuters showed, a sign that the austere Islamist group dictates law even near the Afghan capital.

In the three-minute video, a turban-clad man approaches a woman kneeling in the dirt and shoots her five times at close range with an automatic rifle, to cheers of jubilation from the 150 or so men watching in a village in Parwan province.

"Allah warns us not to get close to adultery because it's the wrong way," another man says as the shooter gets closer to the woman. "It is the order of Allah that she be executed".

… [this public punishment] raised concern about the treatment of Afghan women 11 years into the NATO-led war against Taliban insurgents.

When the unnamed woman, most of her body tightly wrapped in a shawl, fell sideways after being shot several times in the head, the spectators chanted: "Long live the Afghan mujahideen! (Islamist fighters)", a name the Taliban use for themselves.

There is no reasonable comparison between justice administered by the United States military under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and injustice administered by the taliban under the taliban code of barbarity and immorality.

oftenwrong wrote:After what period of time does a healthy discussion descend into prurient interest?

Despite its obfuscatory nature, the above-referenced message is protected communication, due to the fact that the message’s author is guaranteed freedom of speech, for any verbal and/or written speech hearable or viewable in the United States, and freedom of the press, for any published written, audio, and/or video work hearable and/or viewable in the United States, by provisions of Amendment 1 of the United States Constitution as underlined below.

United States Constitution, Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.